[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AA99AF86-CD2A-4BBE-92BC-3D9005E7BA3B@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 07:34:17 -0400
From: Jean-François Lessard <jefflessard3@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device property: Add scoped fwnode child node iterators
Le 29 août 2025 00 h 23 min 22 s HAE, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 10:17:59PM -0400, Jean-François Lessard wrote:
>> Add scoped versions of fwnode child node iterators that automatically
>> handle reference counting cleanup using the __free() attribute:
>>
>> - fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped()
>> - fwnode_for_each_named_child_node_scoped()
>> - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped()
>>
>> These macros follow the same pattern as existing scoped iterators in the
>> kernel, ensuring fwnode references are automatically released when the
>> iterator variable goes out of scope. This prevents resource leaks and
>> eliminates the need for manual cleanup in error paths.
>>
>> The implementation mirrors the non-scoped variants but uses
>> __free(fwnode_handle) for automatic resource management, providing a safer
>> and more convenient interface for drivers iterating over firmware node
>> children.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jean-François Lessard <jefflessard3@...il.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>> checkpatch reports false positives that are intentionally ignored:
>> COMPLEX_MACRO, MACRO_ARG_REUSE, MACRO_ARG_PRECEDENCE
>> This is a standard iterator pattern following kernel conventions.
>>
>> include/linux/property.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h
>> index 82f0cb3ab..279c244db 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/property.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/property.h
>> @@ -176,6 +176,20 @@ struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(
>> for (child = fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, NULL); child;\
>> child = fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, child))
>>
>> +#define fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped(fwnode, child) \
>> + for (struct fwnode_handle *child __free(fwnode_handle) = \
>> + fwnode_get_next_child_node(fwnode, NULL); \
>> + child; child = fwnode_get_next_child_node(fwnode, child))
>> +
>> +#define fwnode_for_each_named_child_node_scoped(fwnode, child, name) \
>> + fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped(fwnode, child) \
>> + for_each_if(fwnode_name_eq(child, name))
>> +
>> +#define fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped(fwnode, child) \
>> + for (struct fwnode_handle *child __free(fwnode_handle) = \
>> + fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, NULL); \
>> + child; child = fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, child))
>> +
>> struct fwnode_handle *device_get_next_child_node(const struct device *dev,
>> struct fwnode_handle *child);
>>
>
>We need a real user of this before we can add them, so please do that as
>part of a patch series.
>
I understand the "no dead code" policy, but I found existing manual
implementations of this exact pattern in the current kernel.
For example, drivers/i2c/i2c-core-slave.c already does:
struct fwnode_handle *child __free(fwnode_handle) = NULL;
...
fwnode_for_each_child_node(fwnode, child) {
...
}
This suggests developers are already wanting this functionality but
implementing it manually.
If included with my driver series, I would only add the
fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped() variant that I actually use,
avoiding any dead code.
Best Regards
Jean-François Lessard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists